Mark Driscoll, Will You Marry Me? Or Looking for Mr. Right at Christian (W)Life College

by Arlene M. Sánchez-Walsh

In my many travels through the
evangelical/Pentecostal subculture, one particular subset of that life has
fascinated me more perhaps than any other. The curious dating dance that occurs
at bible colleges and evangelically oriented universities, where as I have been
told numerous times, women go to meet their future husbands. This selective process is intended to weed
out anyone who women and men would consider incompatible and unequally
yoked. Since I know quite a few of these pairings, some more successful than
others, I thought it would be a good history lesson to see how these
pairings are actually orchestrated--yes, I am afraid that the marriage industry,
as created by mid-20th century marketers of jewelry and other assorted wedding accouterments is not the only thing manufactured, since, it is at these bible
colleges and universities, where, with apologies to Noam Chomsky, evangelicals
are busy manufacturing consent--to appropriate dress, to appropriate dating,
and eventually, to marriage. Here are only a few examples.

Emmanuel
College, located in rural Georgia, was founded in 1919, making it one of the
earliest Pentecostal bible institutes.
It is a part of the Pentecostal
Holiness denomination. It is difficult to disentangle the behavior from dress
codes and in fact to separate all this from the overwhelming desire all of
these bible institutes have to maintain marriage as the final culmination of one’s
life. Emmanuel College students’ sexual
lives are strictly regulated, in accordance with what the college believes is
biblical teaching. As such, premarital,
extramarital, homosexual relationships, acts and practices are forbidden. Emmanuel’s dress codes are in keeping with the
goals of regulating women’s dress and behavior by explicitly making it a way to
de-sexualize women. Men’s dress on the other hand, while subtly arresting some
physical attraction, (assuming seeing
men without shirts is considered alluring), are meant to make them more
professional. They erase the boyish appearance of youthful immaturity with the
more “grown-up” look of shirts and slacks, where t-shirts are to be worn under
all shirts.

A perennial favorite for restriction since
perhaps mid 19th century, but definitely since the late 19th century Holiness
movement, is the prohibition on dancing.
Students should at no time engage in overt demonstrations of affection,
behavior, physical displays of affection in public or private that include but are
not limited to “excessive kissing, inappropriate touching or laying down on
couches.” (The last one I imagine would be self-explanatory).

Elim Bible Institute in upstate New York was
founded in 1924. Its dress and behavior codes are focused on professionalizing
the students, minimizing their casual appearance, and de-emphazing women’s
sexuality much more than men. For men, there are no muscle shirts, shorts, hats
or earrings. For women, there are no low-cut blouses or sleeveless tops. The rules governing behavior seemed to be
aimed not only at reinforcing the moral codes of the school, but in regulating
the social lives of the student’s relationships, more so than Emmanuel.

At Elim, freshmen cannot date and they need written
permission from parents and the Dean to continue an ongoing relationship.
There is no explanation for this given so we can speculate that because
freshman are normally expected to be younger than most other students, their perceived
immaturity would worry school officials. More curious is the prohibition
against engaged couples continuing their relationship on campus, which requires
a Dean’s approval and authorization to do things such as hold hands. As a
deterrent to interrupting their studies by getting married, students are
encouraged to wait till they graduate to get married. Still, the idea
that approval from a school official will deter an engaged couple from holding
hands seems quaint to an outsider but makes perfect sense in a Pentecostal
context where bible institutes serve as a traditional bridge from adolescence
to adulthood.

Zion Bible College in Massachusetts stresses similar dress and behavior codes
regarding modest dress, professionalism, and restrictions on dating, kissing,
holding hands, and any kind of “physical familiarity.” In a nod to
Pentecostalism’s nearly universal denial that same-sex attraction occurs or is
even possible, Zion actually allows same-sex sleep-overs in the dorms, though
one doubts that this freedom would extend to men as well as women. The
behavioral codes, especially regarding homosexuality, include coded references
to “behavior or practices,” assuming one can tell who is and who is not gay by
examining specific non-sexual behavior patterns.

Finally Evangel University in Missouri, founded in 1955 states simply that
everything that is not in keeping with “biblical principles” is forbidden, and
leaves it at that. In contrast, their system of punishments for varying
levels of infractions is almost dizzying in its detail. For a first offenses
for improper displays of affection, there is no sanction. Social dancing is an
“alert level 2” with a $25 fine. The second offense is punishable by up to 8 weeks
probation and another fine. The levels for sexual infractions are so
numerous that it may be worth noting that Evangel punishes both gay and
straight forms of sexual activity. There are levels of punishment for having
sex outside of marriage. There are various levels of punishment for “sexting,”
but not as serious as say genital contact or oral sex, which are both level one
infractions, and both have a $100 fine "with the possibility of STD testing
required afterward."

There are a multiplicity of anecdotal stories
about students realizing that these moral and behavioral codes were simply too
onerous to bear--so one group of dorm mates established a kind of infraction
fund they kept in a jar--just in case.

One can see here the foundation of the evangelical marriage seminar industry,
the “I Left Dating Behind” books, the chastity rings, and yes, if you look
really closely, you can see a slightly stubbly Mark Driscoll talking about
submission and his “smokin’ hot wife,” and if you don’t blink, perhaps you can
see future husbands and wives putting money into the jar on a Friday night.

"First of all, I -- like many college kids -- was simply not conditioned to even think about coupling beyond my next formal date. Secondly, these men may very well have been la crème de la crème, but they were also the guys who, on a Friday night, were more likely to be seen drunkenly stumbling around a frat basement or sloppily sucking face with some girl in a bar.

The same is true of women: Myself and my female peers might have been intelligent, engaging, and vibrant students bound for success, but all of that went out the window when seen at 9 o'clock on Sunday morning, walk-of-shaming home from the frat house.

Patton is mistaken in her assumption that the only reason women are delaying marriage is because they have prioritized "professional advancement [and] breaking through that glass ceiling" above finding a husband. This assessment presumes that women are in total control; that, should a young woman decide to value finding a good husband as much as finding a good job, she will find both, no problem. What a convenient narrative. Unfortunately, ladies, it's simply not true. After all, what guy wants to marry some girl who has slept with half of their friends by the end of sophomore year?"